is the Grunfeld for intermediates?

Mike_Aronchuk

Things can also get confusing for black if white plays a dreaded fianchetto setup with his king's bishop , delaying the e4 advance a little or more.

coolchess_guy
[COMMENT DELETED]
Brb2023bruhh

nah... the exchange variation will captivate every one

coolchess_guy
chessrva163 wrote:

nah... the exchange variation will captivate every one

yeh ....

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
bong711 wrote:

At patzer level, Gruenfeld scores. I tried KID, QID and NID with less satisfaction. the Gruenfeld gives me 60%. QG is too boring for me.

You should have tried BID too. happy.png

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
nighteyes1234 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

 

 

Black is already tempo down due to the fact he is the second player, black commited couple of slight inaccuracies, on above diagram, white has central advanced d for semi-edge b black pawn, nice compact center, etc. In conclusion, big advantage, black could hold by a miracle.

Again, that is with perfect play. As said, top engines at very long TC win 70-80% of the games with white in this particular line.

So that, I would not play the Gruenfeld, the KID yes, but it very much depends on one's individual style, of course.

For the pattern approach, you might want to check this article: https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess

 

Paradoxical, is not it?

Now, tell me modern chess/theory is very advanced.

...g6:

- fiacnhettoes the black dark-square bishop on the long diagonal, it attacks 6 different squares there

- it atacks the center

- the black light-square bishop is not hemmed in after e7-e6, and ready to trade on either f3 or d3/f5, leaving black with a good bishops vs white's bad c1 bishop, etc.

All those advantages easily decide 3...g6 is the best move above, but why do modern theoreticians not see it? Because they don't use patterns sufficiently, in any case advanced patterns.

In that way, everybody learns the wrong way to play. You really think that is good?

 

LOL...they must sell a lot of those phony baloney sandwiches at that deli you go to.

 

Well, he traded his strong d5 pawn for opponent weak e6 one with 15. de6?(?)

Not to mention other errors.

What would you expect then?

coolchess_guy

BID == ? 

bong711

BID = Bogo Indian Defense. 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4 . I find this defense ugly so never tried it. And I score about 65% against it. I prefer and recommend QID if 3. Nf3. The BID is rarely played by super GMs nowadays 

ThrillerFan
bong711 wrote:

At patzer level, Gruenfeld scores. I tried KID, QID and NID with less satisfaction. the Gruenfeld gives me 60%. QG is too boring for me.

 

You will never be a good chess player.  You can't let boring positions get in the way of your game!

 

I've seen it all.  The super boring to the ultra chaotic and everywhere in between!  To just flat out rule out a complete opening complex because of boredom?  Explains why you are only 1700!

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Indeed, chess is too complex to get bored.

But then, Nezhmetdinov had a 4-0 score against Tal.

bong711

@thrillerfan I play chess to fight boredom. I don't mind playing QG as white. As black, boring. 

Many experts and masters say Sicilian should not be played by nonexperts, Gruenfeld is too complex and so on. That's why I love Sicilians and Gruenfeld. If I wait till expert level, I might not play them at all. And miss all the fun.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

That is a good approach!